피나클치료계획시스템에서 자동모델화과정으로 얻은 Jaw와 다엽콜리메이터의 투과 계수 평가 Estimation of Jaw and MLC Transmission Factor Obtained by the Auto-modeling Process in the Pinnacle3 Treatment Planning System원문보기
세기조절방사선치료(IMRT)뿐만 아니라 3차원 입체조형치료(3D-CRT)와 같이 광자선을 이용한 방사선 치료 기술은 방사선을 받아야 하는 표적의 면적을 충분히 증가시키면서, 동시에 정상 조직은 방사선으로부터 보호하기 위하여 정확한 선량 계산을 필요로 한다. Jaw 콜리메이터와 다엽 콜리메이터가 그러한 목적을 위해서 사용되어 왔다. 우리 기관에서 사용하는 피나클 치료계획시스템은 모델기반의 광자선량 알고리듬을 사용하기 때문에 Jaw 콜리메이터 투과계수(JTF)와 다엽 콜리메이터 투과계수(MLCTF)와 같은 모델변수들의 집합이 측정된 데이터로부터 결정된다. 그러나, 이러한 자동모델화과정에 의해서 얻어진 모델변수들이 직접 측정하여 얻은 것들과 다를 수 있는데, 이는 선량분포에 영향을 줄 수 있다. 그래서, 이 연구에서 우리는 피나클 치료계획시스템에서 자동모델화과정에 의해 얻은 JTF와 MLCTF를 평가하였다. 먼저 우리는 이 연구에서 Jaw 콜리메이터 투과계수(JTF)와 다엽 콜리메이터 투과계수(MLCTF)를 직접 측정하여 얻었는데, 이것은 물팬톰 내 기준깊이에서 조사면이 $0{\times}0\;cm^2$일 때의 선량과 $10{\times}10\;cm^2$일 때의 선량의 비로 얻었다. 또한, JTF와 MLCTF는 치료계획시스템내 자동모델화 과정에 의해서도 얻어서, 이 값들이 3차원 입체조형치료시에 선량에 어떠한 영향을 끼치는지 팬톰 연구와 환자 연구를 통해서 평가하였다. 직접 측정한 경우 JTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.001966, 10 MV의 경우에는 0.002971이었고, MLCTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.01657, 10 MV의 경우에 0.01925이었다. 한편, 자동모델화 과정에 의해 얻은 경우, JTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.001983, 10 MV의 경우에는 0.010431이었고, MLCTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.00188, 10 MV의 경우에 0.00453이었다. JTF와 MLCTF의 경우에 직접 측정한 것은 자동모델화 과정에 의해 얻은 값과 큰 차이를 보였으나, 6 MV와 10 MV의 선질을 고려하면, 보다 합리적이었고, 이러한 값의 차이는 낮은 선량의 영역에서 선량에 영향을 미쳤다. JTF와 MLCTF의 잘못된 값은 선량의 오차를 다소 발생시킬 수도 있기 때문에, JTF와 MLCTF를 자동모델화과정에 의해서 얻은 값과 직접 측정하여 얻은 값을 비교하는 것은 빔커미셔닝 단계에서 도움이 될 것이다.
세기조절방사선치료(IMRT)뿐만 아니라 3차원 입체조형치료(3D-CRT)와 같이 광자선을 이용한 방사선 치료 기술은 방사선을 받아야 하는 표적의 면적을 충분히 증가시키면서, 동시에 정상 조직은 방사선으로부터 보호하기 위하여 정확한 선량 계산을 필요로 한다. Jaw 콜리메이터와 다엽 콜리메이터가 그러한 목적을 위해서 사용되어 왔다. 우리 기관에서 사용하는 피나클 치료계획시스템은 모델기반의 광자선량 알고리듬을 사용하기 때문에 Jaw 콜리메이터 투과계수(JTF)와 다엽 콜리메이터 투과계수(MLCTF)와 같은 모델변수들의 집합이 측정된 데이터로부터 결정된다. 그러나, 이러한 자동모델화과정에 의해서 얻어진 모델변수들이 직접 측정하여 얻은 것들과 다를 수 있는데, 이는 선량분포에 영향을 줄 수 있다. 그래서, 이 연구에서 우리는 피나클 치료계획시스템에서 자동모델화과정에 의해 얻은 JTF와 MLCTF를 평가하였다. 먼저 우리는 이 연구에서 Jaw 콜리메이터 투과계수(JTF)와 다엽 콜리메이터 투과계수(MLCTF)를 직접 측정하여 얻었는데, 이것은 물팬톰 내 기준깊이에서 조사면이 $0{\times}0\;cm^2$일 때의 선량과 $10{\times}10\;cm^2$일 때의 선량의 비로 얻었다. 또한, JTF와 MLCTF는 치료계획시스템내 자동모델화 과정에 의해서도 얻어서, 이 값들이 3차원 입체조형치료시에 선량에 어떠한 영향을 끼치는지 팬톰 연구와 환자 연구를 통해서 평가하였다. 직접 측정한 경우 JTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.001966, 10 MV의 경우에는 0.002971이었고, MLCTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.01657, 10 MV의 경우에 0.01925이었다. 한편, 자동모델화 과정에 의해 얻은 경우, JTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.001983, 10 MV의 경우에는 0.010431이었고, MLCTF는 6 MV의 경우에 0.00188, 10 MV의 경우에 0.00453이었다. JTF와 MLCTF의 경우에 직접 측정한 것은 자동모델화 과정에 의해 얻은 값과 큰 차이를 보였으나, 6 MV와 10 MV의 선질을 고려하면, 보다 합리적이었고, 이러한 값의 차이는 낮은 선량의 영역에서 선량에 영향을 미쳤다. JTF와 MLCTF의 잘못된 값은 선량의 오차를 다소 발생시킬 수도 있기 때문에, JTF와 MLCTF를 자동모델화과정에 의해서 얻은 값과 직접 측정하여 얻은 값을 비교하는 것은 빔커미셔닝 단계에서 도움이 될 것이다.
Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-l...
Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.
Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
가설 설정
The dose distribution between by the direct measurement and by the auto-modeling process was compared in Fig. 7. The dose difference around the target was relatively small. Under the same 220 MUs, the point dose at the isocenter for the direct measurement was 200.
However the dose difference in the ring ROI was relatively large as shown in the Fig. 8. The mean dose in the vir_Lung_Ring for the direct measurement was 112.36 cGy per fraction and that for the auto-modeling process 109.34 cGy per fraction. Hence the mean dose difference in the ring ROI was 3.
제안 방법
In order to maximize the dosimetrical difference due to the transmission factor obtained between by direct measurement and by auto-modeling process, the photon beam model in this measurement was generated with only the auto-modeler with out a manual process. In the photon beam model by direct measurement all the parameters were exactly the same with those in the photon beam model by auto-modeling process except that JTF and MLCTF by auto-modeling process were replaced by those by direct measurement.
In this paper we obtain JTF and MLCTF using the two different methods and evaluate the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan, where the tips of MLCs stay longer in the same position than for IMRT.
4 cm2. The field size was much larger than the size of the virtual planning tumor volume (PTV) plus the margin considering the penumbra in order to evaluate the effect of the MLCTF on the dose calculation. A region of interest (ROI) as a gross tumor volume (GTV) was contoured, which was a vir_Lung_GTV ROI.
대상 데이터
In the phantom study, we measured beam profiles and the output of our machine. For the beam profile, the compact ion chamber CC13 (IBA dosimetry, Germany), whose cavity volume was 0.13 cm3, whose cavity length 0.58 cm, and whose cavity radius 0.3 cm, was used in the Blue Phantom (Scanditronix-Wellhofer, Germany) at the 5 cm depth. The source-to-surface distance (SSD) was 100 cm, the field size made by jaw collimator was 20×20 cm2, and the field size by MLCs was arbitrarily made using the Shaper (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) as shown in Fig.
성능/효과
In conclusion, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning because the auto-modeler without manually controlling the beam model can generate the unreasonable JTF and MLCTF values.
참고문헌 (9)
Boyer AL, Ochran TG, Nyerick CE, Waldron TJ, Huntzinger CJ: Clinical dosimetry for implementation of a multileaf collimator. Med Phys 19:1255-1261 (1992)
Kehwar TS, Bharwaj AK, Chakavarti SK: Evaluation of dosimetric effect of leaf position in a radiation field of an 80 leaf multileaf collimator fitted to the LINAC head as tertiary collimator. J Appl Clin Med Phys 7: 43-54 (2006)
Chow JC, Wettlaufer B, Jiang R: Dosimetric effects on the penumbra region of irregular multi-leaf collimated fields. Phys Med Biol 51:N31- N38 (2006)
Vivek M: Radiation pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis in non small cell lung cancer: pulmonary function, prediction, and prevention. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 63:5-24 (2005)
Jang SY, Liu HH, Mohan R: Underestimation of low-dose radiation in treatment planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 71:1537-1546 (2008)
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.